Talk:History of the bicycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cycling Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling. WikiProject Cycling is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] celerifere

There was a speedy stage-coach service in France around 1800 called Velocifere or Celerifere. One Jean Sievrac of Marseille obtained an import brevet on a Celerifere in 1817. In Louis Baudry's 1891 booklet "Histoire de la Vélocipédie" this turned out as a rigid two-wheeler called celerifere just hundred years earlier, i.e. 1791 ... -- Lesseps 05:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on this invention is confusing. I don't know if really exists or if it was just impractical. It insinuates both. This should be cleared up.

[edit] New information, but where should it go?

According to the museum of science and technology (Ottawa) (Today: November 15 2005) the display indicates:


http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/english/collection/bikes1.cfm


The story of bicycle begins with the "hobby-horse" (another name for dandy-horse?), the first commercially sucessful two-wheeled, steerable, human-propelled machine. Patented by the German Baron, Karl von Drais, in 1817. Initially produced in France where it enjoyed considerable popularity among fashionable members of the middle class. --CyclePat 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] milestones?

Would it be appropriate to create a list of bicycle technology milestones for this page? I was wondering what year the following innovations were introduced, and thought they would appear here, things like:

  • introduction of 5/7/9/10 speed gears
  • introduction of double and triple front chainsets
  • first use of carbon/magnesium/titanium/berylium frames
  • manufacturing techniques and alloys which allowed "breakthroughs"207.178.98.52 19:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • introduction of alloy/carbon rims
  • introduction of carbon forks/chainstays/stems/seatposts
  • history of frame tubing (Reynolds 521/652/753/853/953 etc)

(please note that the re-introduction of larger tired bicycles as mountain bikes may not be an encyclopedic event....)207.178.98.52 19:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we make a start? --Richardb20 15:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICHC

I notice these letters, and no definition or internal or external link for them. Will someone explain, either in the present article or another? Jim.henderson 02:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalistic claims

It would be interesting to highlight the way that the history of the bike was distorted for nationalistic reasons in the early 20th century, and related claims that early bikes were non-steerable. See [1] Earthlyreason (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] long history?

"Vehicles for human transport that have two-wheels and require balancing by the rider have a long history." whats the meaning of long history? "The earliest confirmed example dates back to the early 19th century." Is it a long history!!!!? or it wanted to say bicycles were used long before 1860s. If so, is there any proof? no. so the sentence long history must be removed. we use long history for more than at least 1000 years! Iranway (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recumbent?

Reading this article you would be forgiven for thinking that no significant advances were made during the 20th century. What about the recumbent bicycle?

Perhaps this article should be renamed "History of the {Upright} Bicycle", or else have the absolute focus on one frame geometry corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.141.158 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

True, only about a quarter of the article is about the diamond frame majority, but those seem well covered elsewhere and if they needed more it could go in the Starley biographies and other relevant articles. The present article also doesn't mention delivery bikes or my Brompton Bicycle and several other rare modern types, which unfortunately are not widespread enough for their own paragraphs here, but parhaps their history sections should get a pointer from See Also. Jim.henderson (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a recumbent qualifies as a "rare modern type". Delivery bikes and folders are variations on the upright riding posture. Recumbent are a type of bicycle in their own right, that have been around for over 100 years, and have unique advantages (and disadvantages) over the upright riding posture. They most definitely constitute a significant "development" of the bicycle concept and as such warrant their own mention in this page's chronology. Or is the argument that recumbents lack the notability for a mention? 78.150.159.148 (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caster, gyroscopic forces, and stability

"Unlike the penny farthing the safety bicycle does not use gyroscopic forces for stability at every moment. The caster of the front wheel removed the reliance on gyroscopic forces for stability. The improved caster allows the riders balance to correct steering, and steering is self correcting in that if the bike leans over out of balance, the front wheel then rotates to steer the bicycle in such a way that centrifugal force holds the bicycle and rider up."

I can find no source that confirms this reason for the difference between ordinary and safety bicycles. I have seen the counter claim that the drive wheel of ordinaries was enlarged simply to gain a faster cruising speed. For example,
  • The Wheelman, an orgianization "Dedicated To The Enjoyment And Preservation Of Our Bicycling Heritage", says on their FAQ "Why did they make the wheel so big? The short answer is to go faster! The larger the wheel the more ground covered with each rotation. A taller person had an advantage over a shorter person simply because the taller person could ride a larger wheel and outpace his counterpart."
  • Britannica Online says "The ordinary’s cranks were directly connected to the front wheel, and its speed was limited by pedaling cadence and wheel diameter. Larger front wheels went faster and handled better on bad roads."
  • Exploratorium says "The pedals were attached directly to the front wheel of the high-wheelers. The larger the front wheel on an "Ordinary," the farther the cyclist would travel with each turn of the pedals."
  • Sheldon Brown says "Before the use of chain drive, bicycles had direct drive. The cranks were directly attached to the hub of the drive wheel. The larger the wheel, the farther the bicycle would move with each turn of the pedals. The diameter of the drive wheel determined the gear of the bicycle. The larger the wheel, the higher the gear. With a chain-driven "safety" bicycle, you can have any gear you want by selecting appropriate sprockets. With a high-wheel bicycle, the limiting factor is how long your legs are, because you can only pedal a wheel that is small enough for your legs to straddle and reach the pedals throughout the pedal revolution." And "back in the high-wheeler era (1870s through early '90s) long legged riders had an advantage, because they could straddle a larger diameter wheel, effectively giving them a higher "gear." By pedaling on the balls of their feet, they could get a bit more leg extension, permitting a given rider to straddle a larger, faster machine. The development of the safety bicycle rendered this concern obsolete, but the habit (and advice) persisted."
Anyone have anything definitive one way or the other?-AndrewDressel (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Guess not. Out it comes. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)